Re: [PATCH 4/4] 'catch syscall' feature -- Build system, documentation and testcase

[Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>]

>>>>> "Sérgio" == Sérgio Durigan Júnior <sergiodj@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:

Sérgio> This last part modifies the build system (in order to
Sérgio> implement the GDB's datadir), adds the documentation and the
Sérgio> testcase for the new feature.

Nice.

Sérgio> +xml-syscall-copy:
Sérgio> +	list='$(XML_SYSCALLS_FILES)' ; \
Sérgio> +	for file in $$list ; do \

Two nits here.

First, if you build with builddir!=srcdir, you need to mkdir
XML_SYSCALLS_DIR here.

Second, I think it would be nice to detect the case where
builddir==srcdir and not copy in that case.

Sérgio> +xml-syscall-install:
Sérgio> +	$(SHELL) $(srcdir)/../mkinstalldirs \
Sérgio> +		$(DESTDIR)$(GDB_DATADIR_PATH)/$(XML_SYSCALLS_DIR) ; \

Using DESTDIR is nice attention to detail :-)

Sérgio> +# Also, the "install" target installs the syscalls' XML files in the system.
Sérgio> +install: all install-only xml-syscall-install

I think install-only should depend on xml-syscall-install.
I believe the intent here is that "make install-only" will install
everything without rebuilding.

Sérgio> +AC_ARG_WITH(gdb-datadir,
Sérgio> +[  --with-gdb-datadir=path   Look for global separate data files in this path [DATADIR/gdb]],

It is preferable, IMO, to use AS_HELP_STRING here.
There are some examples of this in gdb's configure.ac.

Sérgio> +AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS(doc testsuite syscalls)
 
You don't want this.  There is no syscalls directory, and even if
there was, I would argue that it should not have its own configure
script.

Sérgio> +@item syscall
Sérgio> +@itemx syscall @var{syscall name}
Sérgio> +@cindex break on call to/return from a system call
Sérgio> +A call to/return from a @code{syscall} -- similar to the @code{strace}
Sérgio> +utility.

This needs a minor update now that "catch syscall" can take multiple
arguments.

I didn't read the implementation patch in detail... if it parses
numeric syscalls, then that should be mentioned here.

Finally, instead of "call to/return from", how about "call to or
return from"?  This is more grammatical and not much longer :-)

Tom